Madam, - Most of your correspondents who have criticised my recent speech questioning whether violence was the best way for this State to have achieved its independence seem to have forgotten the fact that Home Rule had actually been enacted into law in 1914, despite the House of Lords and all its other virulent opponents. Home Rule would have come into effect then but for the start of the first World War, an event beyond the control of the Irish Parliamentary Party.
My contention is that, just as the Treaty of 1921 was used non-violently by successive Free State governments of different colours as a stepping-stone to an eventual republic, the same stepping-stone strategy could have been followed (perhaps more slowly) on the basis of Home Rule.
Whatever extra delays and compromises that would have been involved in pursuing that course would, in my personal opinion, have been a fully acceptable price to have paid for avoiding the appalling suffering, destruction and brutality of the two wars that took place in Ireland between 1919 and 1923.
As someone who believes that war should always be the last resort, because once started it is nearly impossible to control, I believe this was a reasonable historical question for me to raise in the context of our more recent experiences with wars both at home and abroad. - Yours, etc.,
JOHN BRUTON, TD,
Dáil Éireann,
Dublin 2.
Madam, - M.M. Ireland (September 24th) should have read the report on John Bruton's address to the Reform Movement.
He didn't disown the Easter Rising. He said it was unnecessary. And so it was.
And for Frank Fitzpatrick's benefit, Home Rule for Ireland was passed into law long before Easter 1916. Without that disaster Ireland would have been free, prosperous and at peace for almost a century now. And several thousands more of her citizens would have lived to enjoy it too. - Yours, etc.,
MICHAEL DOLAN,
Wilderness Grove,
Clonmel,
Co Tipperary.
Madam, - Your report of John Bruton's speech to the Reform Movement's conference at Dublin's Mansion House on September 18th did not mention the aims and objectives of Reform, and the high profile of many of the invited speakers.
Delegates were welcomed by Dublin's Lord Mayor, Cllr Michael Conaghan, before the opening address by Mr John Bruton. Other speakers included Bruce Arnold, MBE, Dr Ruth Dudley Edwards, Mr Eoghan Harris, Dr Chris McGimpsey of the UUP, and His Excellency Stewart Eldon CMG, OBE, British Ambassador to Ireland.
The primary aim of Reform is to restore the "British dimension" to Ireland by way of rejoining the British Commonwealth. This would amount to a rejection of the separatist aspect of Irish nationalism. A return to the days of the Castle and the Viceregal Lodge is no doubt on the agenda of Reform.
This tiny unrepresentative group of British nationalists, on the pretext of modernising Ireland, is really seeking a return to our colonial past with the old order restored, the unionist élite back in power. This Anglocentric minority appears to have influence out of all proportion to its size.
But perhaps the most bizarre aspect of the Reform conference was the participation of the British Ambassador in an open political meeting sponsored by a group which seeks the political destruction of the Irish State. - Yours, etc.,
TOM COOPER,
Delaford Lawn,
Knocklyon,
Dublin 16.